Shamelessly stolen idea from Bill at INDC Journal. One of my favorites songs of all time and it speaks clearly to the issues of our times.

Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here

So, so you think you can tell
Heaven from Hell,
Blue skys from pain.
Can you tell a green field
From a cold steel rail?
A smile from a veil?
Do you think you can tell?

And did they get you to trade
Your heros for ghosts?
Hot ashes for trees?
Hot air for a cool breeze?
Cold comfort for change?
And did you exchange
A walk on part in the war
For a lead role in a cage?

How I wish, how I wish you were here.
We're just two lost souls
Swimming in a fish bowl,
Year after year,
Running over the same old ground.
What have we found?
The same old fears.
Wish you were here.

Belmont Club has an interesting take. You will just have to read it.

John Seward at Just Opinions has an outstanding commentary that is near and dear to my belief system. You may have noticed that I tend to be a little hard on Progressives because of what I call their "adolescent utopianism" - truth be told I sympathize somewhat, but I escaped adolescence and am willing to settle for improvement knowng that perfection cannot be achieved by imperfect humans. The article does point out that Utopians have lead the charge for improvement in our society and that anti-utopianism has its pitfalls, but it also must be recognized that there is inherent danger in pure utopianism - something I have never taken the time to analyze and pin down. Now I don't have to. John appears to be one of those rare bloggers that puts a lot of thought into about every post instead of just linking to the meme of the day and posting a snarky comment (ed. - like some lazy cowboys we know? Shut up) Read the whole thing and think about it.

This is not quite the October Surprise predicted by a certain dingbat who wants to become First Lady.

Drudge reports, in a shocking new development, the looters of the the Al-Caca facilities have come forward to admit their role in the fiasco:

FLASH 10.29.04 11:36:56 ET /// Soldier to brief reporters at Pentagon within the hour that he was tasked with removing explosives from al QaQaa and he and his unit removed 200+ tons... Officer was ordered to join the 101st airborne on April 13 -- to destroy conventional explosives at the al QaQaa complex... Developing...

I am willing to bet, that unlike the douchebag reporter from Minneapolis, this guy knew just where in the hell he was. Kerry and his supporters that are willing to jump on anything, anything, no matter how incredulous or disingenuous, to criticize Bush and our military for the sake of political gain, are complete fucking tools of the first order. But you already knew that, right?

What kind of moron actually believes that looters were able to make of with 380 tons of explosives out from under the noses of a military that can take pictures like this? Personally, I doubt that there are nearly as many who actually believed it as compared to the number who wanted to believe it and didn't question it because they are blinded by their hartred of Bush.

Wizbang points out that the reporter who provided the video "proving" that Bush failed to guard Al-Caca does not know to this day that he was even at the facility (from an interview with Paula Zahn):

Zahn: First of all, Dean, are you convinced of the fact that you actually were at the al Qa Qaa weapons site?

DEAN STALEY, REPORTER, KSTP-TV: Almost certainly.
I think in terms [of whatever] I've been able to learn about where it is, just how big it is and where it is in relation to the place that we were camped with the 101st Airborne, I don't think there's any question that we were in some part of the al Qa Qaa compound.

ZAHN: Let's check in with Michael for a moment here.
What do you make of these highly conflicting stories? You hear Dean's account. We know the date is on that tape. It's encrypted on the tape. So, on one hand, that would seem to indicate that some of those weapons were there after the war began, and yet, the Pentagon today releases a satellite photo that they claim was taken two days before the war got under way showing activity which appear to be trucks perhaps maybe moving some of these materials away from the site.

MICHAEL LYSOBEY, FORMER WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Well, the materials at that site or the materials that I saw in the video are not necessarily the HMX, which is the high explosive used in a nuclear implosion device.
What we saw in the tape were a bunch of barrels and a bunch of explosive caps. Al Qa Qaa is an explosives facility. So that's what we'd expect to see. The explosives that we're worried about, we don't know. This isn't definitive proof that those explosives were there.

Wizbang is not impressed:

So the sum total of this story, when you cut thru the hyperbole, is that some TV station has a few seconds of video of something that looks similar to an IAEA tag taken somewhere in Iraq but we're not really sure where.

Captain Ed offers the following analysis of the whole issue:

The reaction from John Kerry and the hysterics on the Left has been educational. Either they believe that the 3ID and 101st Airborne were incompetent and did not search Al Qaqaa despite the 3ID's insistence that they did and contemporaneous reporting showing the discovery of suspicious materials during their search, or they have cynically seized upon the shoddy and screechy reporting by the NY Times and CBS as a lever to grab power. In both cases, they want us to believe that America was better off leaving all of this material in Saddam's hands, material that they've said for over a year didn't warrant military action, and now claim that Western civilization hangs in the balance because 0.06% of it may have gone missing.

Either they are complete fools or rank opportunists. Take your pick. Neither promises to keep us safe from the people who want nothing more than to kill large numbers of us at the first opportunity.

I mentioned this in another post, but it really deserved its own post. Check it out.

Bwahahahahahahaha!

Warning - somewhat rude, crude, and socially unacceptable.

Ok, click here, but don't say I didn't warn you.

It is actually pretty funny - funny in a "it must really piss them off to keep losing to people they think so little of" sort of way.

Lie. Cheat. Say anything. Engage in thuggery. Coordinate attacks with your willing media accomplices. Bask in the endorsement of terrorists and Oil For Palaces scandal plagued UN lackeys. Such is the strategy of Kerry and the Democrats. If you endorse these tactics, ever, but especially in a time of war, then by all means, vote for Kerry.

I can live with that compared to the alternative of allowing the Democrats to rig elections. Will Wilkinson has some observations about the effect of voter fraud that the Democrats habitually engage in and wonders why the media treats this as no big deal even as it criticizes efforts to enforce voter registration and eligibility laws as intimidation. The gist of the article is that when some Donkey's donkey votes, the effect is no different than if a voter for the other side had been intimidated into staying home. The illegitimate vote cancels out a legal vote.

Exhibit A. Supporting evidence.

Mickey Kaus has the goods. How anyone can believe anything Kerry says anymore is beyond me. Kerry quote:

I have no doubt, I've never had any doubt -- and I've said this publicly -- about our ability to be successful in Afghanistan. We are and we will be. The larger issue, John, is what happens afterwards. How do we now turn attention ultimately to Saddam Hussein? How do we deal with the larger Muslim world? What is our foreign policy going to be to drain the swamp of terrorism on a global basis? [Emphasis added]

The LA Times is reporting that the bastards at the New York Times screwed their legacy media/Kerry campaign operative counterparts by jumping the gun. 60 Minutes, not wanting to outdone by its hack counterpart, 60 Minutes II, planned to run this story right before the election - on October 31.

News of missing explosives in Iraq -- first reported in April 2003 -- was being resurrected for a 60 MINUTES election eve broadcast designed to knock the Bush administration into a crises mode...

Un-fucking-believable. Totally OUTRAGEOUS. Anyone else wonder how that investigation into memo-gate is going? Heads need to roll. Anyone foolish enough to believe in the integrity of our MSM needs to wake up. Kerry, his people, and his MSM cohorts are complete tools and a lesson needs to be delivered to them a week from today. As Ace says, "if you don't vote, Dan Rather wins."

Sixty years, not much time in the life of a country, but what a difference it makes in the life of a political party. Harry Truman vaporized Japanese civilians, and demonstrated to the emperor that the war was over, and we were the victors. He could have let the war drag on and sacrificed tens of thousands more men, but he used the weapons at his disposal and ended it, thus saving American lives.

John F Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country." He stared down the Soviet Union and put the world on the brink of war to keep nuclear missiles out of Cuba. He attempted the overthrow of Castro through the Bay of Pigs, to eliminate a ruthless dictator.

And then there is John Kerry and the Democratic party of today. A few naked Iraqi men being humiliated is torture... But no outrage on civilians having their heads chopped off. John Kerry's mantra is "look what the government can do for you and we will soak the rich to make it happen." John Kerry will stare down a dictator, as long as France, Germany and the U.N. say it's all right with them. John Kerry will fight more compassionate wars, and you can interpret that anyway you want, but if I was a G.I. I would be very concerned.

Harry Truman and John Kennedy were strong men who stood for putting our country and the protection of it's people at the forefront. If they can see what their party has devolved into, they must be rolling over in their graves.

Via Drudge, we discover that Kerry's stooges in the MSM were breathless with excitement about this New York Times report indicating that 380 tons of weapons disappeared in Iraq:

**ABCNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 4 Times
**CBSNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 7 Times
**MSNBC Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 37 Times
**CNN Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 50 Times

Thanks to the foresight of the military's use of embedded reporters, one media outlet gets it right:

But tonight, NBCNEWS reported: The 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives were already missing back in April 10, 2003 -- when U.S. troops arrived at the installation south of Baghdad!

An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.

According to NBCNEWS, the HMX and RDX explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.

It is not clear why the NYTIMES failed to inform readers how the cache had been missing for 18 months -- and was reportedly missing before troops even arrived.

The TIMES left the impression the weapons site had been looted since Iraq has been under US control.

Of course, Kamp Kerry seized on the report in the NY Times and blasted Bush for failing to secure the weapons. A senior Bush official answered Senator Flip Flop with a scathing rhetorical blast:

"Let me get this straight, are Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards now saying we did not go into Iraq soon enough? We should have invaded and liberated Iraq sooner?"

Desperado Joe Lockhart took time out from finalizing plans to cry wolf about voter intimidation on election day while simultaneously claiming victory, to belch out this sputum:

"In a shameless attempt to cover up its failure to secure 380 tons of highly explosive material in Iraq, the White House is desperately flailing in an effort to escape blame. Instead of distorting John Kerry's words, the Bush campaign is now falsely and deliberately twisting the reports of journalists. It is the latest pathetic excuse from an administration that never admits a mistake, no matter how disastrous."

I wouldn't want to answer the question either, Joey. If I were Kerry, I would like to know why it is that I am getting my talking points straight out of the morning headlines at such an unreliable rag, only to be embarrassed later the same day when the truth comes out, as it inevitably will, and sooner rather than later, these days. Hillary, you would be well advised to ditch these losers before you go up against Rudy.

Captain Ed has some indepth analysis here, here, and here.

Typical must read Hitchens. Excerpt:

One of the editors of this magazine asked me if I would also say something about my personal evolution. I took him to mean: How do you like your new right-wing friends? In the space I have, I can only return the question. I prefer them to Pat Buchanan and Vladimir Putin and the cretinized British Conservative Party, or to the degraded, mendacious populism of Michael Moore, who compares the psychopathic murderers of Iraqis to the Minutemen. I am glad to have seen the day when a British Tory leader is repudiated by the White House. An irony of history, in the positive sense, is when Republicans are willing to risk a dangerous confrontation with an untenable and indefensible status quo. I am proud of what little I have done to forward this revolutionary cause. In Kabul recently, I interviewed Dr. Masuda Jalal, a brave Afghan physician who was now able to run for the presidency. I asked her about her support for the intervention in Iraq. "For us," she said, "the battle against terrorism and against dictatorship are the same thing." I dare you to snicker at simple-mindedness like that.

From the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood:

"I don't believe that anyone worse could possibly come," said Mohamed Habib, deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, one of the Arab world's most influential Islamist groups.

"The only difference that might tilt the Arabs toward the Democratic candidate is... that there is a belief that it really can't be worse," added Walid Kazziha, professor of political science at the American University in Cairo.

"Bush is a lost cause for most Arabs... Kerry might do better, especially if he does disengage from Iraq," said Mustafa Alani, senior adviser at the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center.

Engage in thuggery in the run up to the election. Claim fraud even if none exists on election day. Incite riots in the likely event that you lose. Claim victory after losing and sue your way into office.

Nice.

Just got a ticket to the Bush rally in Council Bluffs, IA this afternoon. Recap to follow.

update: The koolaid was fantastic! Rudy Giuliani introduced W, which was a nice bonus. Other than that - nothing much new. Have read all of the speech lots of times and heard parts of it many times. There crowd was rocking - there were 10000 people there and they waited for hours to get in and see Bush.

I noted the day the media died. Vietnam veteran and poet, Russ Vaughn, sheds no tears.

No Mourning for Mainstream

Ah, once so grand you owned this land,
With your wisdom you did ply us,
Until old dears this election year,
You at last unmasked your bias.
Yes, once were you our only view,
No challenge did you face.
You had your say and called the play,
'Til the Blogs got in the race.
We'd like to see fair honesty
But our breath now we're not holding
Because we know how really low
Are the odds of that unfolding
So what is left when we're bereft
Of hearing truth from you?
We'll place our bet on the Bloggers' net
To let the truth come through.
That pajama'd host really wants to roast
Your assets that's for certain.
To debunk the myth of your monolith,
On your act to drop the curtain.
Alas old dears, you're done we fear,
Your dynasties doomed to tatters,
And 'tween the coasts your opinions toast,
About anything that matters.

Actually, from Chuck Shepard's NEWS of the WEIRD column titled "Creme de la Weird":

The race for U.S. Senate in Oklahoma (to succeed the retiring Don Nickles) was described in the press in September as so close that independent, former Green Party candidate Sheila Bilyeu, might take enough votes away from one or the other leading candidate as to influence the outcome. Bilyeu has gained notoriety in the last two decades by filing numerous lawsuits against the federal government (all eventually dismissed) demanding the removal of a radio-like device the military allegedly planted in her head in the 1970s. The device, she said, mostly sends her messages that are highly critical of her. She added in a later lawsuit that President Clinton had ordered her gassed and had stolen her dog. [KOCO-TV (Oklahoma City)-AP, 9-6-04]

Keep this in mind the next time your favorite well meaing progressive greenie is making fun of major party candidates like nutball Alan Keyes and holding an entire party responsible for such candidates' lunacy.

Another campaign ad shoots and scores (an own goal).

(via Wizbang!)

If it's not close, they can't cheat. So get out there and make the landslide factor a reality!

Moonbats who think Kerry is smarter but can't explain his positions any better than he can are:

Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said she was not surprised at the results or that so many people had assumed that Mr. Kerry was smarter. "People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand," Professor Gottfredson said.

And so is Kerry, at least in comparison:

Mr. Bush's score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22 again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120's, putting Mr. Bush in about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer. Mr. Kerry's I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to Mr. Sailer's extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer Qualification Test.

One of my pleasures is watching the Saturday financial shows on the cable news networks. The question that confounds me is why would you invest your money with a manager that supports Kerry or the Democratic party? You give an investment manager your money to grow your capital and meet your financial goals. Any manager that tells me that he supports the candidate that wants more of my money to go to the government through capital gains, payroll, death, and income taxes, is not going to be anyone that I want looking out for my future. These people will sit on tv straight faced and tell you that soaking the taxpayer is good for the stock market, and the individual investor. Mind-boggling.

The liberals complain about the deficit and how Bush ran it up through tax cuts. They seem to forget a little date called September 11th, 2001, and the devastation that it caused our economy. Our economy had already started a downturn under the Clinton administration, before Bush ever took office. Kerry and Company talk of all the jobs Bush lost, as if 9/11 never even occurred. No President creates or loses jobs; they can influence the economic climate to entice business expansion and subsequent job creation. This is what Bush did through the tax cuts. He gave people a cash windfall, which they used to purchase goods and services, thus spurring the manufacturing sectors which resulted in job growth. Jobs create income, which are taxed and returned to the treasury and used to lower the deficit. It worked for Reagan and it is working for Bush. A country does not tax itself to prosperity, as John Kerry suggests.

Infidel Cowboy is going to be presenting guest articles from time to time. This article brought to you by frequent commenter x-raydude in reaction to the events in this story. Fair warning, whereas I consider myself more of a small "l" libertarian on social policy and classic liberal on foriegn policy, x-raydude brings a more conservative, pro-Republican viewpoint to the table.

Why would anyone in their right mind want to be a police officer? Today the media screams that the police "murdered" a poor woman in Boston. The attitude seems to be that a few burnt cars, looted shops, vandalized property is all "ok". It may be "ok" if it isn't your property, but if I had put my hard earned money into a business, or car, I want the police to do their job and protect it. "Protect and Serve" is their motto, right? I'm sorry the poor woman died but if I was in a mob and the police showed up and told us to disperse, I'd be hightailing it. My perception is this: for her to be hit in the manner she was, she had to have been in the front row of the mob, and that is typically where the people who taunt the police are. I'm sure the crowd had been warned many times to disperse and then the police took the next logical step, by using a typically non lethal action. The crowd's action precipitated the response. The police were doing their job.

What happened to the days of "stop or I'll shoot"? Some nut gets behind the wheel, and tries to out run the police. He slams into a mini van and kills a family. Who's at fault? The police of course. The case goes to court, the family is awarded $15 million dollars, and the police and/or city has to pay. Why not sue the nut? He doesn't have any money, and no lawyer is going to take a case where there's no big pay out. Government has deep pockets, they are much better to hit. How about this; some nut steals a car, starts a chase and a marksman is placed ahead in the road, and he uses lethal force to end the chase, and the only loss of life is that of the perpetrator. I'd say after a few of those, the practice of running from the police would stop. The perpetrator's action places the public in as much danger as if they walked into a crowd and started indiscriminately firing a gun. The threat should be handled as such.

Best of luck to the Boston police. You are screwed, you are going to pay through the nose for that woman's death. If you let them burn down the city, you will be demonized because you didn't do enough. Every time you arrest some drunk jerk, they will scream police brutality and the media will be there to tell their story. Finally, when your officers get hurt in the line of duty, no one will rise to your defense, and tell the populace to show due respect to your ranks. I personally think that society takes some sick pleasure in seeing police get hurt. Why would anyone want to be a police officer?

Another outstanding political ad, reminiscent of a great Toby Keith song (link in bold):

American Soldier

I'm just trying to be a father
Raise a daughter and a son
Be a lover to their mother
Everything to everyone
Up and at 'em, bright and early
I'm all business in my suit
Yeah, I'm dressed up for success
From my head down to my boots

I don't do it for the money
There's bills that I can't pay
I don't do it for the glory
I just do it anyway
Providing for our future's my responsibility
Yeah I'm real good under pressure
Being all that I can be

And I can't call in sick on Mondays
when the weekends been too strong
I just work straight through the holidays
And sometimes all night long
You can bet that I stand ready when the wolf growls at the door
Hey, I'm solid, hey I'm steady, hey, I'm true down to the core

And I will always do my duty no matter what the price
I've counted up the cost, I know the sacrifice
Oh, and I don't want to die for you
but if dyin's asked of me
I'll bear that cross with honor
'cause freedom don't come free

I'm an American soldier, an American
beside my brothers and my sisters I will proudly take a stand
When Liberty's in jeopardy, I will always do what's right
I'm out here on the front line
Sleep in peace tonight
American soldier, I'm an American soldier

Yeah, an American soldier, an American
Beside my brothers and my sisters I will proudly take a stand
When Liberty's in jeopardy I will always do what's right
I'm out here on the front line
So Sleep in peace tonight
American soldier, I'm an American
An American, an American soldier

Ignore for a minute the disingenuous nature of those people who opposed the war in Afghanistan and now criticize "outsourcing" that war and those who opposed war in Iraq but now say we don't have enough troops over there and want two new divisions of soldiers created. Ignore those who criticize Bush for acting unilaterally and say he hasn't engaged our "real" allies - even though they are now criticizing him for not unilaterally engaging North Korea and Iran. Think about this - "dumb old" George Bush has taken the nuanced approach of dealing with each of the 3 members of the axis of evil in the way most commensurate with the threat they present in relation to the resources available.

Iraq was lead by someone who had thumbed his nose at the world community and its sanctions for years and was bribing most of the world to look the other way from his genocidal and terrorist sponsoring tendencies. President Bush knew that the only country that could do anything about it was the US, and he did something. On the issue of North Korea, Bush knows that China is probably the only country in the world with any real influence, so he forced multilateral discussions on North Korea. He also knows that insular and far away North Korea poses the least direct threat to the US. As for Iran, Bush has humored the EU, allowing them to attempt (futilely) to broker a deal on developing nuclear capability. That attempt is not working, and is showing how impotent the EU and United Nations are in dealing with these kinds of threats.

Now Bush is being criticized by the Monday morning generals for having engaged Iraq and leaving us no with no capacity to deal with Iran. Aha! This proves to the gloom and doomers that Bush miscalculated! Not so fast. This misses something obvious - Bush knows that we have a trump card in one of our real allies, an ally with some big brass ones, an ally that will never let Iran have nukes, an ally that has been kept on the sidelines until the right time. Israel knows when the right time is.

Now Kamp Kerry is slamming Cheney for getting a flu shot. Only problem, Cheney is a perfect example of a person at high risk who should be getting one. As is Bill Clinton. Stupid and desperate.

Hmm....

Kerry: Yasser Arafat, China, France, Germany, Malaysia, North Korea, Cuba

Bush: Russia, Japan, Australia, Great Britain, Iraq, Afghanistan

I am sure I missed a few for both.

No point, really. Oh, except that is seems Communists, terrorists, and there supporters seem to heavily favor one candidate over the other. Why is that, do you suppose?

Bill of INDC Journal finds someone who has figured it out!

Kerry only supports action that could result in US military casualties if the UN has given its blessing. Actually, not even then, since he voted against the first Gulf War. No wonder Karl Rove looks like such an evil genius - all he really has to do is throw Kerry's own feeble words back in his face. Kamp Kerry has to make shit up like draft rumors and supposed quotes of Bush saying he would privatize social security.

Did you know that you don't have real, grownup, self affirming jobs? Hey, don't get pissed at the Infidel, I am just passing along the word from would be first lady Teresa Kerry.

Q: You'd be different from Laura Bush?

A: Well, you know, I don't know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good. But I don't know that she's ever had a real job - I mean, since she's been grown up. So her experience and her validation comes from important things, but different things. And I'm older, and my validation of what I do and what I believe and my experience is a little bit bigger - because I'm older, and I've had different experiences. And it's not a criticism of her. It's just, you know, what life is about.

Teresa, of course, had the real job of inheriting billions of dollars from her dead Republican first husband and is now busy spending his money on things he probably wouldn't have approved of, such as trying to get John elected.

I have commented on President Bush's introduction to Ashley Faulkner before. (Be sure to follow that link to see a compare and contrast of Kerry and Bush interactions with families of 9/11 victims.) Now the world is about to know the story. Voters in 9 swing states will be seeing it on the air. You can see it here.

I have also commented that the original SBVT ad may have been the most devastating political ad I have ever seen. I have mentioned that the rabid moonbats on the far left have made it nearly impossible to take the Democrats seriously. In a perfect world, an ad like this would have more influence than all the MoveOn and the SBVT stuff combined.

RTWT here.

It is said that America's W.W.II generation is its 'greatest generation'. But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's 'last generation.' Born in the bleakness of the Great depression and hardened in the fire of W.W. II, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake 'living in America' as 'being an American.' But America has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities.

This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp the obligation that comes with being an American, or fade into the oblivion they may deserve. I believe that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill."

It always astounds me to hear the disingenuous caterwalling about how the budget deficit is irresponsibly leaving our children in debt from the same people that would leave our children to fight the terrorists who attacked us in this generation. It enrages me to listen to these idiotarians proudly proclaiming their their anti-war stance. Seriously, is that some courageous moral stance? Is anyone really pro-war? Being anti-war is like being anti-cancer, as some have put it. A courageous moral stance would require that one realize that some things are worse than war. It would require standing for something instead of against everything.

It will be truly disgusting if we can't answer this call when one realizes how little is being asked of us compared to the WWII generation - all that is required is that we be patient and supportive as the professional military goes about doing its job on our behalf.

The terrorists that attacked us counted on their belief that Gen X and Gen Y have grown up with things too good and too easy - that they are "soft" and don't have the backbone to stand up to them. Now is the time to rise to greatness, answer the challenge of our times, and prove them wrong.

Jeff Goldstein is too damn funny.

Why is it that the troops support him 4-1 over John Kerry? Hmmm... Seems like they would be in the best position to know how things are going, wouldn't they?

I also find it curious that the actual commander of the American forces in Afghanistan, Tommy Franks, thinks that Kerry's oft repeated claim that we "outsourced the hunt for Bin Laden in Tora Bora" is pure unadulterated bullshit. Really, who would know better?

update: The soldier who wrote this eloquent, rational, must read email to Andrew Sullivan knows who is better and why. Especially after reading this, I don't really give two shits what anti-war genocidal dictator excusing ANSWER lovers turned Monday morning armchair generals have to say about Iraq. You know who you are. This guy gets it.

"I was stationed at a base (Al Taqqadum) South-West of Fallujah that we took over from the 82nd Airborne. Your writing about the Abu Graib prompted me write this. It is an explanation of why so many in the military favor Bush, even though we are the ones suffering the most because of his mistakes:

It is an old military maxim that blunders can be forgiven, but a lack of boldness cannot. There will always be blunders. The simple becomes difficult in war. Take for example the following question: what is 2+2 equal too? An easy question right? Now imagine I gave you 15 such questions and you had 2 seconds to answer them. Most likely you would answer some and leave the rest. Looking at those questions you missed in isolation I might say, "What kind of blathering idiot are you? You can't even answer simple questions like 2+2=4". That is why Armchair Generals are so annoying. They look at one thing in isolation with all the time in the world to think about it and say confidently "the answers obvious". But when you are out in the fight everything looks different. Nothing is ever seen in isolation. You never have enough time. You never know more than 1/10 what you need to know. There will always be blunders.

But the job has to get done anyway. And to get this kind of job done boldness is essential. A leader who never blunders, but who doesn't take the fight to the enemy is worthless. A leader who sets about to win - win ugly if needs be - is priceless.

One thing the Marine Corps taught me is that a 70% solution acted on immediately and violently is better than a perfect solution acted on later. My experience has proven this true time and again. The sad fact is however, that a 70% solution is a 30% mistake. And those mistakes can be hard to take. In WWII for example, 700 soldiers drowned in a training accident in preparation for D-Day (that is about how many combat deaths we've experienced so far in Iraq).

There is a scene in the movie "We were Soldiers" that says it better than I can. In the scene a young soldier on the ground is giving directions on enemy positions to aircraft flying overhead. The aircraft then dropped Napalm on the enemy. At one point the soldier gets the directions wrong and stares horrified as the Napalm is dropped on his own unit. The soldier is shaken beyond belief. He sat there doing nothing - paralyzed by his mistake. Then his Commanding Officer gave him the confidence to carry on. The CO told him to "forget about that last one" and "you're keeping us alive here". And so the soldier swallowed his guilt and kept doing his job and thereby saved the unit. That is what a 70% solution looks like in real life. And those are the 70% solutions that win wars.

Most people and events are beyond your control. Most questions you don't have time to answer. Most facts you will never know. But you have to press the attack anyway. No matter how ugly it gets, you keep going until you win.

Kerry doesn't understand that. Everything he did during the Cold War and everything he says about this one states as much. He represents those who would never blunder, but who would not take the fight to the enemy. He would just sit there - like the soldier in the movie - paralyzed by America's mistakes."

On a related note, see this montage set to Johnny Cash's "When The Man Comes Around."

Apparently he got beat up a lot as a kid, was snapped with towels in the locker room, was the last one picked for kickball, and never got invited to sit at the cool kids table at lunch. I guess that explains why he pissed all over Pat Tillman. And here I thought he didn't have a good reason for being such an asshole.

(via CrushKerry)

Of course John "say anything" Kerry wants you to believe it is Bush's fault. Why not blame the manufacturer of the botched flu vaccine, Chiron? Here's why. Why not blame the trial lawyers for creating an business climate so hostile to manufacturing vaccinations here in the US that we have to depend on foriegn countries to supply us with vaccine? Here's why.

(via InstaPundit)

With apologies to Carly Simon:

You waltzed into the party
Like some prodigal pre-annointed tot
Your hair strategically placed and sprayed just so
Your lips they were apricot
You had one eye in your compact
As you watched yourself so hot
And John Kerry dreamed that you'd be his partner
You'd be his partner, and

You're so vain
You probably think the election's about you
You're so vain
I'll bet you think this election's about you
Don't you? Don't you?

You had me several months ago
When I was still quite naive
Well, you said that we had two Americas
And that jobs should never leave
But you gave away supporters you craved
And one of them was me
We had some hope and then you went and sold out
Went and sold out, and

You're so vain
You probably think this election's about you
You're so vain
I'll bet you think this election's about you
Don't you? Don't you?

We had some hope and then you went and sold out
Went and sold out, and

You're so vain
You probably think this election's about you
You're so vain
I'll bet you think this election's about you
Don't you? Don't you?

Well, I hear you went up to Pennsylvania
Hoping that your horse would win
Then you flew your Lear jet south to Florida
To scare the voters with some of your spin
Well, you're where you should be all the time
And when you're not, you're with
Dick Cheney and losing debates again
Losing debates again, and

You're so vain
You probably think this election's about you
You're so vain
I'll bet you think this election's about you
Don't you? Don't you?

(hat tip to CrushKerry)

Just in case there weren't enough people questioning the value of a University of Nebraska education, it appears that we are going to be treated to the Tommy Lee version of "Back to School." I wonder if Tommy thinks this will be more popular than his last reality film co-starring Pamela Anderson?

Oh well - can't ruin my fun. The game day environment in Lincoln is unbelievable (even without Tommy Lee) and Nebraska now has a QB who has thrown for 300 yards in a game. Only took 115 years!

(hat tip to transit librarian)

For Kerry supporters: He isn't George W. Bush.

For Bush voters, it is slightly more complicated.

(via InstaPundit)

That is what Elizabeth Edwards, and apparently a lot of unhinged lefty bloggers, think of children of political figures. Hugh Hewitt has the best take on this that I have seen so far, with lots of links to normally pro-Kerry legacy media types.

Key points:

"Stephen Hess, a political analyst at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution, a think tank in Washington, and author of The Little Book of Campaign Etiquette , said he was 'absolutely startled' by Kerry's mention of Mary Cheney.

Hess said Kerry crossed the line of political decorum - even though Mary Cheney is open about her sexual preference and her parents have talked publicly about her in the past.

'To make it about an opponent's daughter struck me as such poor taste,' Hess said."

and Hewitt's characterization:

A decent man would never have made the calculation of whether an opponent's child was "fair game," much less the remark. An honorable man would have already apologized. The voters are getting a good look at the real John Kerry, his running mate, and their defenders.

A protocol that every parent knows is that I can remark about my kids, you can remark about your kids, but I can't remark about yours and you can't remark about mine. Every person that wants to remain on good terms with a parent knows this and has the sense to follow it. Kerry violated that protocol on a national stage on live television in order to score political points - a fact made all the more disturbing considering the homophobic nature of those with whom we was likely to score points.

update: "So, to my many friends on the left, an easy question - doesn't Kerry have any gay family members, friends, or associates of his own?" Good question.

Stephen Green is pissed. So am I. You should be too.

If Drudge has it right, then the Kerry-Edwards campaign is going to do its damnedest to turn our fine nation into a banana republic.

To these guys, winning office is more important than the sanctity of elections. Holding power is more important than the Constitution. Much as I despise at least half of what most Republicans stand for, they don't seem nearly as willing to trash the system they're trying to run. Too many Democrats, especially at the national level, just don't care that our system, our nation is far more important than any single election.

I could mention the Lautenberg Trick in New Jersey. Or Gore's ballot shenanigans in Florida. Or the voter-registration fraud currently going on in Colorado, Nevada, and elsewhere. Or the Democrats' successful call to bring election observers into this country. Bring them in from where, Venezuela? Hey, no big deal sullying the reputation of the world's oldest continuously-functioning democracy, just so long as we can make the Republicans look bad, right?

The rules don't matter. The reputation of the country doesn't matter. The political health of the nation doesn't matter. Power matters.

RTWT

Battles, the war, hearts and minds, all of it - using effective tactics that involve Iraqi troops and smart strategy to get the general population to understand the folly of tolerating the insurgents in their midst. As President Bush said yesterday, "The best way to take the pressure off the troops is to succeed in Iraq." What we are doing is working, but you would never know it listening to John Kerry and the legacy media.

I was at a sports bar watching the other losing team from Massachusetts get thumped by the Yankees.

I will post links to insightful analysis as I find it.

Captain's Quarters is as good a place to start as any.

Crush Kerry has some good analysis too.

Discovered in a mass grave in Iraq.

Shocked investigators reported finding "thighbones the size of matchsticks" at what they believe is the site of one of Saddam Hussein's atrocities. Among the findings-were the skeletons of unborn babies and toddlers clutching toys.

A baby had been shot in the back of its head and was found still being clutched by its mother, who had been shot in the face. The discovery was reported as Tony Blair came under mounting pressure to apologise to Parliament for the misleading intelligence claiming Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

If Kerry had his way (assuming you can take him at his word on his most recent waffle on Iraq), those mass graves will still be getting filled with matchstick sized thigh bones. But hey, violence and war are amoral, right? If war to end this kind of atrocity is not a just war, then the concept is meaningless.

According to Drudge, Kerry Senior Advisor Chad Clanton is threatening Sinclair Broadcasting saying that if it airs a documentary critical of Kerry, it had better hope he doesn't win. Imagine if John Ashcroft had said that to the producers of Michael MooreOn's Farenheit 9/11? I blame John Ashcroft.

Edwards: 'When John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve are going to walk. Get up out of that wheelchair and walk again'...
(via Drudge)

update: America's Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, lets us know what he thinks of the nuanced nuisance's viewpoint on terrorism.

update: Michele Catalano has a list of "nuisance incidents" and wonders how the families of the victims of these "nuiscances" think about he who would be President saying that terrorism was and will once again be just a nuisance.

original post:
His own words indicate why he cannot be entrusted with our national security. His response to a question about what it would take for Americans to feel safe again:

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' he said.

''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling.

"But we're going to reduce it, organised crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

Reduce terrorism to where it is not on the rise? Apparently in Kerry's world, a 9/11 every so often is a nuisance similar to entertainment options available in Nevada? Islamofascism doesn't threaten the fabric of westernized civilization - the thread from which the fabric of our lives is made? Out of touch or detached from reality? Or just trying to snag part of the libertarian vote by equating terrorism with victimless crime?

His solution to making America feel safe again is for us all to bury our heads in the sand, as he apparently has. To paraphrase Cameron Diaz, if you think terrorism should be treated as a nuisance, don't vote.

The polls will be interesting this week. I expect to see Bush open up a double digit lead again and to win reelection in a landslide.

John and Teresa can shove it up their class warfaring asses. Typical snobby liberals - taking advantage of every tax cheating scheme available rather than paying their fair share, all the while demonizing the "rich." You know them, small businessmen, or people who have worked their way up to great paying jobs, or who have dual income earners each making a decent wage - scum like that. People that Kerry thinks it is ok to deomonize since he believes there aren't many - as evidenced by the way he condescendingly decided after a quick scan of the Missourians at the town hall debate that the only people that would be affected by his tax hikes were he, the President, and the moderator. I guess when one has married into billions, it is hard to sympathize with those out busting their asses for what seems like chump change. It is also probably hard for him to understand the fuss about him taking a bigger chunk from those paying their fair share already when he is able to dodge taxes through all kinds of shelters put together by high priced lawyers.

(via Drudge)

update: INDC Journal has some analysis.

First Tommy softens him up with a body blow:

"If his voting record ruled the day, Saddam Hussein would not only be running Iraq but Kuwait," Franks told about 200 people Sunday at a Reno rally.

Kerry counters feebly:

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' he said.

Franks lands a quick jab:

"The choice is very, very clear. We need decisive, strong, no-backing-down and no-equivocating leadership," he said.

Kerry tries to wrap him up:

''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling.

Kerry's manager is reaching for the towel:

'"But we're going to reduce it, organised crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

Too late, Franks knocks him out with an upper cut!

"I know a commander in chief when I see one and there's only one on the ballot," Franks said. "After September 11th, we were blessed to have a commander in chief who said enough is enough."

And you can count Kerry out.

This is a resounding success in the War on Terror. Bill has it covered very well at INDC Journal. I don't have much to add except to note that, of course, the usual suspects will dismiss this in any way possible so as to avoid President Bush or his policies getting credit for anything. Cest la vie. The defeatists will get a taste of what their pessimism has wrought on November 2nd.

Scrappleface explains the bulge in the back of Bush's jacket during the first debate. Seriously, how could anyone watch that first debate and believe that Bush was being fed answers? If that were true, who ever was doing the feeding should be replaced by someone more competent. Donkeys aren't too bright to be bringing this up about a debate that their guy clearly won, especially after Bush won the second debate. Desperation is never pretty.

John Howard has been re-elected in Australia.

I am often regaled with claims about the integrity of progressives. It is on display in South Carolina where a Progressive has been arrested for filing bogus voter registrations. The genius was busted because someone recognized the name on a bogus registration as that of the mayor. Given there association with Communist groups like ANSWER that they continually downplay or outright deny, this lack of integrity isn't surprising.

This legacy media asshat thinks it is the job of ABC to determine whose distortions most need countering as we decide who should be President for the next four years.

Bush definitely took the gloves off tonight. The finish wasn't as strong as the start, but Bush at least held his own right to the end, which is enough to score it a win for Bush considering the expectations set in the last debate.

update: One particular annoyance is Kerry's "I have a plan" answer to every freaking question! A plan, that of course, he never details, or at best refers you to his website to discover. This is a public forum with a live audience - answer the damn questions and gives us some insight into what you believe! Although, considering his lack of core beliefs on the important issue and unpopular positions on the things he actually has core beliefs about, I understand his reluctance.

update: Two complete bullshit questions, both favoring Kerry. First, and most damaging due to it being the last question and due to its blatant inherent bias - asking Bush to identify three mistakes he has made, with the presumptive rebuttal being for Kerry to pick 3 mistakes Bush made. What the hell is that? Second, asking Kerry to look into the camera and repeat his false talking point about only raising taxes on the "rich" - totally favorable to Kerry and what is the presumptive chance for rebuttal on such a "question?" Funny thing is, Bush handeld the first question well, admitting to non-specific mistakes and accepting responsibility about the way history will judge him. Kerry would have looked like a jerk to pick out specific Bush mistakes after that. Even funnier is Kerry couldn't hit the softball pitched to him out of the infield. He looked into the camera, at least at first, but then he started squirming like a perp being "interviewed" by Detective Sipowicz.

Paul Bremer has much more to say than what you have been hearing in the Legacy Media and in Kerry stump speeches. Much has been made of this:

It's no secret that during my time in Iraq I had tactical disagreements with others, including military commanders on the ground. Such disagreements among individuals of good will happen all the time, particularly in war and postwar situations. I believe it would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting that did so much damage to Iraq's already decrepit infrastructure.

What you aren't hearing is, as Paul Harvey likes to say, is the rest of the story:

The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we'll never know.

But during the 14 months I was in Iraq, the administration, the military and I all agreed that the coalition's top priority was a broad, sustained effort to train Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security. This effort, financed in large measure by the emergency supplemental budget approved by Congress last year, continues today. In the end, Iraq's security must depend on Iraqis.

Our troops continue to work closely with Iraqis to isolate and destroy terrorist strongholds. And the United States is supporting Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in his determined effort to bring security and democracy to Iraq. Elections will be held in January and, though there will be challenges and hardships, progress is being made. For the task before us now, I believe we have enough troops in Iraq.

The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.

With all his sudden credibility granted by the Kerry campaign his media accomplices, I hope they are taking note:

President Bush has said that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. He is right. Mr. Zarqawi's stated goal is to kill Americans, set off a sectarian war in Iraq and defeat democracy there. He is our enemy.

Our victory also depends on devoting the resources necessary to win this war. So last year, President Bush asked the American people to make available $87 billion for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military commanders and I strongly agreed on the importance of these funds, which is why we stood together before Congress to make the case for their approval. The overwhelming majority of Congress understood and provided the funds needed to fight the war and win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were vital resources that Senator John Kerry voted to deny our troops.

Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism.

As Bill Whittle so eloquently explained, that is the difference in approach we are voting for. I mean it when I say that if you don't have time to understand the difference between the approaches, you should stay home November 2nd. While I do think one can read the case and not be persuaded to abandon the carrot approach, the evidence in my mind is overwhelming that the stick is absolutely essential at this point.

Consider yesterdays events in Egypt, and the reaction in Cairo (see last sentence in that story). Worse than the celebration of the attacks, the Egyptian police wouldn't even let Israeli rescue workers and medical teams in for hours. Egypt is a country that gets a lot of carrots from us - nearly two billion dollars in foreign aid annually. Those carrots were a reward to Egypt's secular government for it agreeing to sign a peace treaty with Israel. The result? Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was assassinated by the a group led by the future co-founder of Al Queda.

Another problem with the carrot approach is that we aren't the only one with carrots. Not only that, but some of those we thought were our friends would rather have ill gotten carrots than continued friendship, according the Duelfer report. If all you hear is Kerry campaign speeches and CBS News, you may be shocked to learn that the Duelfer report was over 1000 pages along and not just a sticky note saying "Bush lied - there are no WMD." It says that sanctions were being ignored, Saddam was bribing France (imagine that), China, and Russia to use their UN Security Council seats to lobby against sanctions and to thwart weapons inspectors and forestall war with the US. Once the sanctions were lifted, he would have rapidly reacquired WMD. Bottom line, he believed the carrots he was offering would protect him from the stick long enough for him to get his own stick. Based on the actions of our "allies," he was probably right in his belief.

Personally, I don't think we can wait around for an American Beslan. It isn't some remote impossibility. The terrorists know that it would be impossible in our free society to provide enough security for us to be safe by assuming a defensive posture. Our only good option is deterrence. The stick has been an effective deterrent to attacks in this country for 3 years now, but the job is not done. There will be a time for carrots, that time is not now.

Oh sure, they keep on saying that they just want it to be better, that they don't hate America. Well, this kind of shit is about as un-American as it gets, and I fail to see how it is making America better.

For more non-Minnesota examples of the left wing lunatics "making America better," see this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this. Obviously, John Ashcroft is to blame.

update: Looks like I missed a few.

update: here is one example of how this is backfiring.

update: more backlash against the haters.

Funny.

The Hawkish Case for Kerry

and

The Liberal Case for Bush

I think these articles pretty clearly show that liberal != Democrat and that conservative != Republican these days. The moonbats and wingnuts, at least as far as I am concerned, are the ones with blind loyalty to a party even when it no longer accurately reflects their views and ideals.

update: Download the pdf version here. Share the message!

update: link added to the article I was demanding that everyone read. doh!

Bill Whittle lays it out in simple terms. I am humbled by how much more clearly and convincingly he articulates my strongest beliefs about this election. It is a long, two part piece. It is also well worth your time. If you read it and disagree, so be it. If you don't have time read it - to paraphrase moonbat Cameron Diaz - let the adults decide the election and don't vote.

Excerpt:

And all of this rage and fury and spitting and tearing up of signs, all of these insults and spinmeisters and forgeries and all the rest, seem to come down to the fact that about half the country thinks you deter this sort of thing by being nice, while the other half thinks you deter this by being mean.

It's really just that simple.

Now if sociology were a real science, we could set up experiments. We could, in fact, do what just about every one of us - Liberal or Conservative -- has, in our heart of hearts, secretly wanted to do: send that 50% of idiots on the other side packing - I mean, really packing, as in, out of the country, for good -- and let history show we were right after all.

We imagine an America made up exclusively of tough-minded Conservatives would be a far better, a safer and stronger place, than an America composed of nothing but compassion-filled Liberals.

They, of course, think precisely the opposite. And I have, over the past two years, determined that internet comment threads do not hold the answer to this predicament. Theirs, and ours, are usually just cheerleading sessions, full of sound and fury and signifying nothing but a soothing reduction in blood pressure brought about by the narcotic high of being agreed with.

We can't, alas, deport all the left wingers and they cannot, damn it, silence all the right wingers. We are stuck with each other. Each sees the press as biased toward the other, and each gapes in awe and amazement that the other side could possibly feel the same way.

And although we can not run an experiment to look into the alternate futures to glean the best result, to determine the relative benefits of being nice or being mean - for those, ultimately, are the choices, believe it or not - we can at least look back to see which seems to have produced the best results in the laboratory of history.

It all comes down to carrots (liberals) or sticks (conservatives). By the way: if you're in a rush and need to run, here's the spoiler: You can offer a carrot. Not everybody likes carrots. Some people may hate your carrot. Your carrot may offend people who worship the rutabaga. But no one likes being poked in the eye with a stick. That's universal.

I'm a stick man. I wish it were different. But part of growing up - in fact, the essential part of growing up - is realizing that wishing does not make it so.

Folks, it's time to reach down deep and get in touch with our inner adult.

I thought it was quite appropriate for Bush to be making faces was Kerry was spouting his guano. Now, President Bush, in probably his best speech ever, reaffirrms that as he takes Kerry to the mat. Let's hope this George W. Bush shows up at the debate Friday.

Transcript and video here.

Click "Read more" for excerpts.

Read More »